Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

So I was looking at the Zipper Method, and I kinda thought of a variant for it. It goes like this:
1. Cross
2. F2L - 1 edge
3. CLL
4. L5E
What I like about the second step is that if you get a bad F2L case, you can just insert the corner and continue with the other corner-edge pairs, which can be faster than doing normal F2L.
Instead of doing OLLCP, you could do CLL (smaller alg set) and move on to the first step of L5E.
The L5E part can be split into 2 parts: solve 2 top edges to where they belong in the cube with an algorithm, and L3E, using 1 algorithm to solve the rest of the cube.

There might be more efficient ways on doing the last 5 edges, but for now I think it's good.

Edit: I also included an example solve to show you guys how it works.

Justin (the inventor of Zipper) has already come up with that and it's called Zipper-b, but it's almost certainly better than normal Zipper. The algs are found here.
You one look L5E for the best.

So I was looking at the Zipper Method, and I kinda thought of a variant for it. It goes like this:
1. Cross
2. F2L - 1 edge
3. CLL
4. L5E
What I like about the second step is that if you get a bad F2L case, you can just insert the corner and continue with the other corner-edge pairs, which can be faster than doing normal F2L.
Instead of doing OLLCP, you could do CLL (smaller alg set) and move on to the first step of L5E.
The L5E part can be split into 2 parts: put 2 yellow edges to where they belong in the cube with an algorithm, and L3E, using 1 algorithm to solve the rest of the cube.

There might be more efficient ways on doing the last 5 edges, but for now I think it's good.

L5E just means last 5 edges, so it doesn't really matter. Just as CLL in Waterman is different to CLL in CFCE, L5E in Zipper is different to other L5E.

So, it's like Petrus, except instead of EO you do CO. Then, when F2L is finished, you have all the corners oriented. Then you can do one alg and solve the rest of the cube. The LL set would have less algs than ZBLL, cause corners instead of edges would be oriented. I can't figure out how to do CO properly though.

Petrus with CO would make the right block F2L blockbuilding a whole lot worse, because with EO you can do it iwth just R and U moves, while without it you require F and / or B moves, and, also, it is basically impossible to building your right block without breaking CO.
CO isn't hard to do. In fact, it takes the same number of moves to do as EO, but the benifits of CO aren't much. It doesn't make blockbuilding any easier like EO does and it barely makes the corners any easier to solve, and it heavily restricts what you can do, for example, if you have CO it's impossible to solve the cube without breaking CO, unlike EO, unless........ along with CO you also have EO on two axis as well; so then you have domino reduction. Then it's actually really dang good

For the ESO method: just start off by building a 2x2x2. It averages 6 moves if you get good.
Instead of solving the whole E slice, just solve the FL and BR edges. That will only be another 4 ish moves.
EO+cross is an interesting step. I'd guess about 8-10 moves?
2 keyhole F2L pairs which would be maybe 10 moves.
An F2L pair, around 8 moves.
ZBLL, 16 moves (inc. AUF).
All in all, an interesting method, rotationless and good ergonomics, althougn mixed. Probably a low-ish movecount of <50 moves. Would be cool to see if it's good, but would need ZBLL (493 algs) to unlock its proper potential.

Hello PapaSmurf,
yeah your additions are very interesting. In fact it realizes my ideas very good. So do you think, that my original method is interesting or your modified version?
For example i don't use keyhole because you need too much algs. The ESO Method as it is needs just the algs in step 5. someone above you mentioned that my F2L after E-Line is inefficient but i think as a fast cuber you can perform the U and R Turns fast enough to get good times. Also your ZBLL in the last step can be modified because i found out that if you insert the last 3 f2l pairs you can also orientate the last layer with just U and R turns. But i did not figure out how this comes. It works in like 75% of my solves.
Greets

This is a post to debate the possibility of making this method MUCH faster.

Spoiler: Hint 1

[Its very old.]

Spoiler: Hint 2

[It is NOT layer by layer.]

Spoiler: What is it?

[Its Corners first/Waterman!]

Why revisit corners first?
Corners first is a very old method that isn't talked about as much as before. I want to revisit this method with a possibility of cutting times by ALOT!

What's the big change?
The new change is implementing EG-1 ALGS! As we know EG-1 takes less than a second to do. We also know its possible to get Sub 10 with corners first, If we use EG-1 ALGS and solve the rest as you normally would, we could cut the time in HALF!

Will this have any downsides or drop offs?
I will be testing this method in an attempt to see how this could change this method. As far as we can see so far there is no drop offs.

"this isnt viable!"
I'm well aware, I would just wanted to see how we could increase this method's speed as a fun project.

I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed. This is a place to post them. I have come up with many ideas and didn't want to post a new thread for every one of them when most don't get very far. Perhaps if an idea gets very far, it may deserve its own thread, but until then, it should go here.

Be open and understanding
Everyone should be open to new ideas, yet also understanding if others don't think it will work.

Post all kinds of ideas
Feel free to post all kinds of ideas here. It does not necessarily have to be oriented around speedsolving. Ideas could range from fewest moves, blindfolding, speedsolving, OH, cube designs and more.

Be clear
Please try to be clear in your explanations of why something is a bad/good idea and use evidence to support your thoughts. Also be clear as to what idea you are referring to.

Avoid cluttering the thread
To avoid unnecessary clutter, you should edit a post to add more information rather than create a new one, unless you want to bump your idea. You should wait at a days since your last post on a certain topic to bump it. To present a new idea, you should present it in the same post as your last idea or bump if you do it on the same day.

Do Your Research
There are a lot of different methods out there. Please try to make sure your idea is new/original before posting. You should check out the methods pages on the wiki.

Here is a list of commonly suggested methods: Belt - Anything that solves the cube like this (the belt does not always have to be made first / many times EO is solved with it). This is a broad category and there is a large variety of belt methods already out there and there is a good chance you will be repeating something.

F2L blocks - Solving a 2x2x3 block (as in Petrus) by solving 3 cross edges and the two pairs that go between them, solving two 1x2x3 blocks on opposite sides (as in Roux) by placing two cross edges and solving F2L pairs, or any other kind of block, but the already previously listed are the most common.

Cross variants - Solving the cross (or EO line) in a different manner to affect the solve later in some way. Common examples are only solving 3 cross edges, purposely solving the last cross edge as a different edge, and swapping two edges in the cross or EO line.

Last layer variants - There are for subgroups that the last layer is commonly broken down into. These are corner permutation, corner orientation, edge permutation, and edge orientation. Any combination of these in any order has been thought of before. Also, influencing any one of these in some way while placing the last F2L slot has most likely been thought of.

Corners/edges first - Solving either all or most of the corners or edges before solving much (if any) of the other is frequently suggested. In fact most of the early speedcubing methods were corners first.

PCMS - This technically is included in the corners first category, but it is suggested often enough that attention should be brought to it.

Big cube reduction variants - Reducing a 4x4 to a 2x2 has been suggested many times. Influencing edge orientation or the permutation of certain pieces while reducing the cube has been thought of as well.

If there is anything you think I should add to this list, you are welcome to suggest it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To start off, here's a idea I had that ended up similar to the Roux method. Because I liked how easy it was to make corner edge pairs using them M layer, I started making an F2L minus the M layer. I then proceeded to make 2 corner edge pairs in the top layer similar to what is done in Heise. These pairs should not interfere with the M layer and should contain either both BU or FU corners. In other words, you have both the left and right side complete minus 1 corner in each of them. You could then solve the remaining 2 corners and the M layer with an algorithm.

I thought this could better be adapted to speed solving by solving 2 corners while solving the last F2L pair. Then you could solve the UL and UR edges with M and U moves. In Roux, there are variants to solve the M layer last rather than the top 4 edges.

After realizing the similarities with roux, and realizing the ability to AUF the M slice separate from the corners of the top layer, I came up with this: Solve 2 1x2x3 blocks on opposite sides, AUF until you get to a CLL case, Solve the UL and UR edges without misplacing the U layer (you may temporarily move the U layer), solve the top 4 corners and the M layer with an algorithm that is reduced by the ability to AUF the M layer. It should be noted that an experienced solver wouldn't need to AUF to find a CLL case just to have to move the U layer to solve the UL and UR edges.

The number of cases could drastically be reduced by orienting edges while placing the UL and UR edges. You could also reduce it even further by using partial corner control while placing the last F2L slot finishing the second 1x2x3 block. Because CLL cases are recognized by swapping 2 corners, when you AUF to a CLL case and have the UR and UL edges solved, you leave only permutations with an odd number of swaps in the M layer giving you 4 possibilities compared to the 5 possibilities (including solved) that there would be with an even number of swaps. This is not true of CLL cases with corners correctly permuted. In all, I calculate 92 algorithms to solve the top 4 corners and the M layer using partial corner control and having edges preoriented (I did include CPLL but not cases with all corners solved and I did not include mirrors).

Aw man. I had just made a method called "Pillar method" where you make 4 f2l pails without cross. But then i saw the columns first method. Though my way is different from it's solve

This is a post to debate the possibility of making this method MUCH faster.

Spoiler: Hint 1

[Its very old.]

Spoiler: Hint 2

[It is NOT layer by layer.]

Spoiler: What is it?

[Its Corners first/Waterman!]

Why revisit corners first?
Corners first is a very old method that isn't talked about as much as before. I want to revisit this method with a possibility of cutting times by ALOT!

What's the big change?
The new change is implementing EG-1 ALGS! As we know EG-1 takes less than a second to do. We also know its possible to get Sub 10 with corners first, If we use EG-1 ALGS and solve the rest as you normally would, we could cut the time in HALF!

Will this have any downsides or drop offs?
I will be testing this method in an attempt to see how this could change this method. As far as we can see so far there is no drop offs.

"this isnt viable!"
I'm well aware, I would just wanted to see how we could increase this method's speed as a fun project.

This isn't new. The fastest CF method is LMCF and everyone who does corners first should use the most advanced 2x2 method as possible. Check that method out.

Hello PapaSmurf,
yeah your additions are very interesting. In fact it realizes my ideas very good. So do you think, that my original method is interesting or your modified version?
For example i don't use keyhole because you need too much algs. The ESO Method as it is needs just the algs in step 5. someone above you mentioned that my F2L after E-Line is inefficient but i think as a fast cuber you can perform the U and R Turns fast enough to get good times. Also your ZBLL in the last step can be modified because i found out that if you insert the last 3 f2l pairs you can also orientate the last layer with just U and R turns. But i did not figure out how this comes. It works in like 75% of my solves.
Greets

I think that your method is interesting and the modified version is a faster version of your method, so is also interesting. As Etotheipi said, keyhole is completely intuitive and is definitely faster than the F2L that you're proposing. The ergonomics aren't that great but doing it this way will definitely make it faster with really good ergonomics.
When you get to last slot, the 100% best way to do it is insert the pair then ZBLL. Skipping OLL (with winter variation or OLS) just isn't as good as winter variation takes too many moves with an extra look and OLS is slightly less efficient, when, if you get good, you can predict the OLL during last slot. I know 493 algs sounds like a lot, but you don't need to learn 144 of them (as sune and anti sune ZBLLs aren't any faster than sune+PLL) and if you start earlier, you will have more time to learn them. Also people have learnt full ZBLL in 2 months, so it is possible to learn all of them quickly.

The Mephiles-R seems similar to the Hexagonal Francisco variant Octagonal Francisco.

Step 1 - Octagon: a layer with the DF and DB edges missing, and the DFR corner missing.
Step 2 - Equator: done the same as Hexagonal Francisco
Step 3 - Corners: Commutators probably
Step 4 - L6E

1. FB
2. SB except one pair while placing UR and UL in DF DB (like in pinkie pie)
3. Use ZBLS for your last SB pair while orienting edges
4. Use ZBLL to solve the corners and to make it so that when you inser LR edges the M-Slice is solved
5. Insert LR
6. Done !

1. FB
2. SB except one pair while placing UR and UL in DF DB (like in pinkie pie)
3. Use ZBLS for your last SB pair while orienting edges
4. Use ZBLL to solve the corners and to make it so that when you inser LR edges the M-Slice is solved
5. Insert LR
6. Done !

Interesting, but it seems a little complex. ZBRoux (Roux but EODFDB -> ZBLL instead of CMLL -> LSE) is already a thing and I think it might be better... maybe post an example solve here?

The first variant seems really similar to the Skis method.
Also the second one looks a bit worse than the first since the only advantage is that you can place all the E-layer edges <RUu>-gen, but solving the corners is a lot more moves.
Mephiles-CT looks really interesting, I like how the beginning is similar to ZBRoux, except that you don't solve the DFR and DBR corners. (Maybe there's some better way to solve from step 3, for example DBR + EP and L5C afterwards?)
Mephiles-Z isn't that great imo because the M slice doesn't really make ZZF2L a lot more efficient and the DFR and DBR corners only hinder solving since it almost always requires you to solve them first, which isn't that great in terms of movecount.
Since you do equator in most of the variants directly after T-shape, you could also have some kind of Roux variant with FB+DR edge (fat T-shape because it's two layers?) and then solve the rest of the E-slice to have a lower movecount (though it might be too similar to Roux that way).
All in all, really good job with the method and keep on posting new ideas and methods!